You must be new to clue, dude. Imagine it’s not your turn, but since you’re the bestest and fastest player in the whole damn ranks (sarcasm), and you want to make an accusation who is the killer, and used what weapon in what room when it’s not your turn yet. It wouldn’t be fair now would it? Fairness is what mattered to PEOPLE back in the good old times. Something you wouldn’t know much about. No body does anymore.

I’ve yet to understand what’s so great about online. What’s so great about it? I’ve never played an online game in which everyday, was great. Every online game was s****y and lousy and boring. You have to play with and against: trolls, rage quitters, cheaters, hackers, and whiners. There is really no difference in playing with or against a human player vs a bot/AI. Both can make stupid decision. Both can make wise decisions. One rage quits. The other doesn’t unless YOU quit the game. Win or lose it’s not going to make a difference if playing against a bot/AI.

Being part of the leader boards isn’t part of the Clue game. Just some stupid thing devs added for players who want to feel they’ve the best at the games. And people like me just thinks it’s all stupid. Imagining doing that for the actual board game in real life. Making your own leader boards. So stupid.

s0_RoNerY dono,
First of all, I appreciate your response.
I do not understand English, so I use a translation tool to read and communicate. Because of this, there may be moments where we both find each other's words unclear or confusing. I wanted to mention that in advance.
After reading your response, my impression is that our opinions are not significantly different. Any misunderstandings or differing viewpoints seem to be minor.
I first encountered the board game Clue about 50 years ago, and I started playing Clue/Cluedo on Steam a few years ago. I didn’t have many opportunities to play the board game since I lacked opponents. After getting Clue/Cluedo, I played AI matches for only 2–3 weeks. In that sense, I’m somewhat of a beginner. However, I have played multiplayer for quite some time.
If I were to demand the exclusive right to interrupt and make an accusation, that would be unfair. My proposal is that anyone, not just me, should be able to make an accusation the moment they uncover the truth. That would be very fair. I do not wish for this to be a privilege only for myself—the rule should allow anyone to accuse.
Since Clue/Cluedo is a game in which each player tries to solve the mystery before others, allowing accusations at the moment of discovery actually makes the game more “fair” in terms of player skill.
If, as you sarcastically suggested, my skill is too superior and gives me an unfair advantage, then players can simply leave the multiplayer lobby immediately. As I mentioned before, leaving a match is a strategic decision and neither shameful nor dishonorable—I do not criticize it.
What I do criticize, however, is blindly making an accusation based on luck without any real certainty, hoping to win and escape. That is not “deduction.” If someone is playing in that manner, I would rather they leave the lobby from the start.
Regarding online and AI matches, I actually agree with you quite a lot. I rarely participate in large-scale multiplayer online games. The main reason is that in most cases, enjoyment is determined not by player skill but by who spends the most money—a ridiculous system. Secondly, I primarily enjoy simulation games, so I have little interest in games that rely on anything other than intelligence and reasoning skills.
However, Clue/Cluedo is an exception. During my first 2–3 weeks of AI matches, I noticed that AI reasoning, while logical, followed predictable patterns, making the matches dull. Furthermore, by the time I stopped playing AI matches, I was winning about 90% of the time. Seeking more excitement, I shifted to multiplayer.
Human players—whether clever or foolish—are far less predictable than AI, which made the game much more interesting. At first, my win rate was only around 20%, which fueled my passion for the game. Later, I realized that my poor win rate was largely due to the widespread presence of multi-account players engaging in unfair practices. After exposing this issue on the forums, the frequency of cheating gradually decreased. About 2–3 years ago, an update made multi-account cheating impossible. However, there are still occasional cases where multiple players seem to be collaborating unfairly—I rarely encounter such players, but they do exist.
As for rankings, I am fully in favor of abolishing them. After every game, players are redirected to the ranking page. When I see certain players with strange points or unnatural point increases, I feel frustrated. Because of this, whenever I confirm unfair play, I feel compelled to expose it. Cheating is ultimately a waste of time even for the cheaters themselves, so rankings serve no real purpose and would be better removed.
Now, regarding AI matches—have the AI algorithms been improved? If they no longer rely on predetermined patterns, I might give AI matches another try. You might tell me to simply play and find out myself, but I still find human players appealing, even though I don’t always understand what they are doing.